What is a fair house split after divorce and years apart?

[CrumbocalypseNow]

Name changed but am a long time poster. I have sought legal advice but the advice was to try to speak to my ex husband as we are on good terms. However, because of the way he is I need to be very clear on what is fair and what is reasonable before putting any kind of idea to him as he's very rigid in his thinking on certain things and has zero empathy with no idea of what is actually reasonable. So wanted to ask the vast experience which makes up this board on what is fair and reasonable.

Have been divorced/separated 20 years and was married for 15 years with two small children now grown up although still supporting youngest at uni.

When we divorced, we made a verbal agreement in mediation that I would stay in the house but we'd split it 60/40 when I sold it when our children were grown up. I'd not have any claim on his pension but we cashed in an endowment and I got that which was about 10k which settled a credit card I had in my name but which had been used for driving lessons, a computer for freelance work, and house things.

I realised on speaking to him recently that he thinks the 60/40 split is based on the house value now and not what it was then. My understanding is that it was based on what it was when we split up as I was waiving my right to part of his pension. I had a valuation at the time and obviously it has gone up in value since then to the tune of around 100k. The mortgage is 120k and he will be in a position to pay off his half of the mortgage when it comes up for renewal next year. He works for a local authority and has a good pension. I had no pension as was a single Mum struggling for years doing freelance or part time work. I paid all house costs, insurance, mortage since 2006.

We get on well and he had to rent all that time while I got to live in the house with our chidren. I don't want to be unfair on him. The split was because he fell in love with his boss (didn't have an affair but would probably count as emotional affair) but mostly have realised he's quite autistic and really struggled with small children and just wanted to be out of the house. I grew to feel resentful and unsupported and when he admitted to being in love with his boss and wanting us all to be friends, I just said I'd had enough and wanted out. The lack of empathy for not only myself but for his children was tough in those early years.

Move to the current day and cost of living crisis and the fact the house needs repairs and I couldn't afford it on my salary alone and it's coming to the time of needing to sell, I needed a lodger and we actually get on well enough that I suggest he move back in, pays me rent rather than another landlord, and we do up the house together to sell it or even potentially just live separate lives in the house (I have no desire for another relationship). It means he gets to see his children when they're home and it works as well as it can do given the circumstances.

Obviously that muddies the water when we need to separate everything out. What on earth do I do? We get on well but I ultimately dream of my own little flat somewhere but don't know what to suggest in terms of splitting the house. It's not fair really if we do 50/50 based on what the house is worth now as I paid the mortgage alone for years (although he was paying rent elsewhere). I also would have been entitled at the time to some of his pension. I do have one now but not very old and I don't think I'll ever be able to retire. I had thought I might be able to downsize a bit and use some of the house equity for a pension.

Sorry that's long - just no idea where to start on what's fair. Obviously we should have had it written and signed at the time and it's my fault really that we didn't as I was just really struggling back then and struggling to stay on top of everything and I let things slip. Then it got too late and then I realised the misunderstanding. I'm happy to come to a new arrangement but want it to be fair to both of us.

Who has paid the mortgage since you split?

I would suggest that legal advice will be needed to unpack all of this and keep things fair.

It is normally on the current value, not from twenty years ago.

Who has been paying the mortgage since you split? If it was just you then you might be able to argue a different split. Edit - i see you did. How much cms did he pay, and what was his rent vs the mortgage amount?

Or just get proper financial advice from a solicitor and do it that way, which would involve pensions and any savings etc you have accumulated in 20 years.

Me in full although exes name still on mortgage as neither of could buy the other out.

Honestly OP, due to the length of time I would have at least one solicitor's appointment to guide you. You don't have to take their advice but they can at least point out where one of you might be more financially vulnerable. If it was only 5 years or less i would say stick to your agreement but this is twenty years of you paying the mortgage etc.

The financial advice from a solicitor was to just discuss it with him but I need to be clear first what's fair. We are both lower rate tax payers and he's local authority so neither of us super wealthy.

I had thought since I gave up rights to his pension which would grow then he gave up rights to the increased equity post split since that would grow too. It's 20 years of equity post splitting up and I've paid the mortgage, council tax, insurance etc since the split.

He has paid between £100 and £200 per month per child going up over the years. I had them living with me almost all the time. He had one night every other week on average when they were younger and one week holiday in the summer and a few days at Christmas. As they got older with other things on weekends, he'd just come down to take them out for a walk or something on his weekends - he's still helping support youngest in uni.

I think it would need to be on the current value.

you may have paid the whole mortgage but I assume you haven’t paid him any rent to make up for the fact you are sole occupier. He’s basically deferred his payout for 20 years, so he will need to see some sort of interest on that, which will be the increase in value/equity on the house.

This is why courts favour a clean break at the time I guess. It gets messy otherwise

As much as you have paid the mortgage since he left, by not selling the house you have made him pay rent rather than paying a mortgage on how own home. I think a valuation based on the current value is fair in these circumstances

You could think of the total housing costs for the both of you as one pot and base it around that. Ignore anything like bills, council tax, insurance, etc. How does his rent payment compare to your mortgage payment over the 20 years? If it’s pretty much 50/50 then I think you need to share the equity.

Then you ask for 1/2 mortgage payments and buildings insurance from his share if hes adamant its on current value. Was there anything in writing with a valuation on the value when you split??

Edited because it posted twice for some reason sorry!

I think the difficulty is the passage of time.

You need to look at what was fair then.

When you split what was the value of the house and what was the equity.

What was his pension cetv and what was yours?

What is the house worth now and what equity would there be if sold?

Yes you paid mortgage council tax and insurance but the last two you would have had to pay anywhere. His money has been tied up in the house for 15 years so he has had to rent.

You ARE benefitting from increased value of the house.

I do understand how shit it feels to be having to resolve this after all this time. The numbers may help people advise you.

Dear OP
you sound like an amazing person to have held things together for the family all these years, and to have warmth and compassion in your heart to accept some things about your ex now. I wish you all the very best for nice years ahead with your own little place.
Your financial situation is complex, and I hope it’s ok but I asked ChatGPT in case the answer is complex, and it said:

Legally, the biggest issue is that there appears to have been no formal financial order when you divorced. If that’s true, then neither of you necessarily has a legally binding entitlement to a particular percentage based on a verbal mediation discussion. The exact position would depend on the paperwork from the divorce and the mediation. Given the stakes (house equity and a local authority pension), the legal advice you’ve already sought is important.
From a fairness perspective, I don’t think many people would regard a simple 50/50 split of today’s equity as obviously fair.
Why?

• he retained his pension rights.
• You gave up any pension claim.
• You housed and raised the children.
• You paid the mortgage and upkeep for around 20 years.
• Property prices have risen substantially during a period when you were carrying the ownership costs and risks.
• He was free to build pension wealth while you were financially constrained.

On the other hand:

• He apparently accepted not receiving his share of the house for 20 years.
• He had to pay rent elsewhere.
• You benefited from living in the house and having security for the children.
• He may genuinely have believed the agreement was that he would eventually receive 40% of the property’s future value.

That’s why I don’t think either extreme position feels entirely fair: “He gets 40% of the house’s current value”

• Potentially unfair to you because it ignores your mortgage payments, maintenance costs and pension sacrifice.

“He gets 40% of the house value as it was in 2006 and nothing more”

• Potentially unfair to him because he left his capital tied up in the property for two decades.

A compromise that many people would probably see as reasonable would be something like:

1. Work out the house equity at separation.
2. Give him his agreed share of that equity.
3. Give him some share of the growth in value because his capital remained invested.
4. Give you credit for the mortgage capital repayments and major maintenance costs you’ve borne since then.
5. Consider the pension issue as part of the overall picture.

For example (purely illustrative):

• Equity in 2006: £100k.
• His 40% share: £40k.
• House has gained £100k in value.
• Perhaps he receives some proportion of that gain, but not 40% of all of it because you alone paid the mortgage and carried the costs.

I suspect many family lawyers looking at this informally would say that a settlement somewhere between his interpretation and yours is likely to look more reasonable than either endpoint. One thing that jumps out is the pension. A long-serving local authority defined-benefit pension accumulated over 20 years may be worth far more than either of you appreciated at the time. If you waived pension claims in exchange for a larger share of the house, that is a very significant factor in assessing fairness. My practical suggestion would be:

• Gather the 2006 valuation, mortgage balance and any documents from mediation.
• Obtain a current valuation of the house.
• Obtain an up-to-date cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) of his pension.
• Calculate how much mortgage capital (not interest) you’ve repaid since separation.
• Then have a conversation based on numbers rather than memories.

Reading the facts as you’ve presented them, my instinct is that a straight 50/50 split of current equity would favour him, while treating him as entitled only to a fixed cash amount based on the 2006 value would probably favour you. A negotiated middle ground that recognises both your mortgage contributions and his long-term tied-up capital seems the most defensible notion of fairness.

I thought it was normally the current value that’s used, to offset the fact that his capital has been tied up for x number of years in a house you lived in.

Thank you for responding :)

I did pay for a solicitors advice but it wasn't hugely helpful as she suggested to just to talk to him. He is reasonable but just has very rigid thinking (autistic) and so if I hit up against his thinking of what was agreed all this time, I just want to know I'm being fair and reasonable. The solicitor didn't suggest what would be fair.

Essentially I'd potentially be giving him 40k while I get 60k but he doesn't realise that a share of his pension was something I gave up. He has forgotten this entirely. My pension pot is currently only around 19k (hence I don't think I'll ever be able to fully retire even when I'm at pension age - I'll just maybe go part time). So this money makes a big difference to me and my quality of life in the future.

I don't know how much his is worth although likely be a final salary type deal with local authority where he's worked the same job for 40 or more years. We're both lower rate tax payers and I'm a good 10k per year off paying higher rate where he's probably a bit closer to it so neither of us are big earners.

It's not totally his fault obviously my private pension pot is so small. I work for a small local company now which allowed me to be a more present parent - it's round the corner from their school and was flexible hours where I could take time off and make it up with no issue.

I could have worked in the local big city (25 hours of commuting to do it) and earned more which I did for a few years but was leaving at 6.30am and returning at 10pm which wasn't feasible long term. We were all miserable. My Mum moved in for a while to help look after my children but the local job earning less has worked really well as a parent if not so great financially.

I can’t think why you’d expect the valuation to be that from 20 years ago.
YABVU.

Honestly this sort of shit is why it’s generally recommended to sort financial stuff at the time.

what’s fair or reasonable tends to be very very dependent on circumstances and if you have been separated for a long time but not divorced then per the law you are still married and they are joint assets.

verbal agreements sometime in the past are not binding and if he wants to take this through the courts he really could do.

Op in the gentlest way you saying he’s rigid and autistic means nothing as both you s as md him will be rigid in beliefs of what is owed and what is fair, that’s why a trip back to the solicitor (or a different one!) would be a good idea. I was interested reading the chat gpt answer above as it’s fairly spot on, you both got certain pros and cons from the agreement (your costs vs the fact that he had to rent etc) . Saying that I actually don’t get that it would be based on 20 year ago’s valuation of the house, that seems a bit random. Best of luck but do get another solicitor, this isn’t a small thing

If the house was sold at the time and split then 60/40 what would the value have been for both of you?

And how long had he worked for the local authority at that time?

This is what Chat GPT thinks- This sounds less like a question of strict legal entitlement and more a question of what a reasonable person might regard as fair after 20 years of living with an informal arrangement.
A few thoughts jump out from what you’ve written:
The biggest issue is that there may be two completely different understandings of the original deal
You appear to have believed:

• The house value was effectively “frozen” at separation.
• He would eventually receive 40% of the equity that existed at that point.
• In exchange, you gave up any claim on his pension.
• You then took on the responsibility and risk of maintaining the property and mortgage.

He appears to believe:

• He retained a 40% ownership interest in the property itself.
• Therefore he receives 40% of whatever the house is worth when sold.

Those are radically different outcomes. The difficulty is that without a written agreement, neither interpretation is obviously provable from what you’ve described. Why a straight 50/50 (or 60/40 of today’s value) may feel unfair to you Over the last 20 years:

• You’ve paid the mortgage.
• You’ve paid insurance and maintenance.
• You’ve carried the risk of repairs.
• You gave up a potential pension claim.
• You’ve had much lower earning capacity because you were raising the children.

At the same time:

• You had the benefit of living in the house.
• He had to fund accommodation elsewhere.
• He has not had use of his share of the equity for 20 years.

That’s why this isn’t as simple as saying either party is clearly right or clearly wrong. The pension point is important Many people underestimate this. If he has spent the last 20 years building up a local authority pension, that could now be worth considerably more than the house appreciation you’re discussing. A court looking at matters today would not simply look at the house in isolation. The pension would be a major asset. That doesn’t mean you’re entitled to part of it now, but it does mean that your feeling that you “gave something up” isn’t unreasonable. A practical way to think about fairness Rather than arguing about what was agreed in 2006, it may be more productive to ask: “If we were trying to divide everything fairly today, taking account of what happened over the last 20 years, what feels equitable to both of us?” Possible approaches could include: Option 1 – Honour the original 60/40 split on today’s equity

• Simplest.
• Probably what he believes was agreed.

Option 2 – Start with 60/40 but recognise your mortgage contributions

• Calculate how much capital repayment you made since separation.
• Credit some or all of that back to you before dividing remaining equity.

Option 3 – Obtain a pension valuation

• Understand what pension was accumulated after separation.
• Use that information as part of negotiations.

Option 4 – Negotiate a completely fresh settlement

• Acknowledge that neither of you documented the original deal.
• Agree a figure that allows both of you to move on comfortably.

One thing I’d be cautious about You mention he has moved back in and you’re renovating together. Before either of you spends significant money on improvements, I would strongly recommend getting a written agreement about:

• ownership,
• renovation costs,
• sale proceeds,
• what happens if one of you wants to leave.

The more money that goes into the property now, the harder untangling it becomes later. My overall impression Reading your post, I don’t get the sense that you’re trying to deprive him of something that is obviously his. Equally, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for you to feel that a simple “40% of today’s value” ignores two decades of mortgage payments, child-rearing, and the pension issue. If I were in your position, I’d want:

1. A current valuation of the house.
2. A record of mortgage capital repaid since separation.
3. A valuation of his pension.
4. A family solicitor or mediator to help both of you reach a written settlement.

Once you have those numbers, what is “fair” becomes much easier to discuss rationally rather than relying on memories of conversations from 20 years ago.

Even if you've paid the mortgage, he been paying rent. It should be 50/50 and the same for the pension. Doesn't matter if he fell out of love with you.

When you divorced, didn’t you get a financial order at the same time? My solicitor told me the would very very strongly advise this was done before the divorce was finalised so I’m surprised if you didn’t have the same advice.

What, if anything, was actually put in a financial order when you divorced?

Thank you. That's a great summary of the issue and a good practical way forwards to find a compromise which isn't unfair to either of us.

If we had known then what we know now about autism and neurodiversity, we may have found a way through our issues but he was in complete denial back then and we were both full of anger with each other. I did suggest at the time I thought he might have asperger's syndrome but he thought that was ridiculous as it wasn't picked up at school and that was it - end of discussion. Now he totally realises he is very much on the spectrum. One thing is he's completely honest which helps and he has got less angry about everything now he's older although so have I.

I often see some threads on Mumsnet and it's all LTB but I do wish for both of us we'd been a bit kinder to each other back then. It's all so difficult though and stressful with small children - I'm in awe of people who have good long marriages with children into old age. Nobody gets there without difficulties along the way.

I think all bets are off. You need to start from scratch and need to look again at his pension.

You should never have 'waived' your rights to a share of his pension - especially because you continued to be unable to earn at your potential because of the caring that you were doing on his behalf.

You can't rely on 'I can never retire' - who will employ a 75 yo?

Unless there was a legally binding agreement then, get a (different) solicitor to make him an offer which will probably include a share of his (likely very generous) pension. This will likely be much bigger than the difference between the house value then and the house value now that you're worrying about.